the underlying assumptions rig the debate

Recently, I had a request that seemed reasonable to me at first glance that a couple of areas that I tend to bring up, such as the past not being fixed, be left off from threads because they could be used to challenge nearly any evo position on any thread or some such. This is not to complain about that request, but thinking on this, it illustrates a simple fact.Assumptions rig how we interpret data, and thus what we accept as a fact.Let me illustrate. Let's say we are talking about whether the Bible fits in with the data in respect to the scripture that death entered into the world through Adam's transgression.Assuming a linear perspective of causality and time, one would assume that there should be a record of no death prior to mankind, and then radical changes after Adam's fall (or the other approach could be to say the biblical passage is not literal). For sake of argument here, let's just assume the correct interpretation is there existed no death prior to the Fall (not sure that is right, but just to illustrate a point).Well, the critic of the Bible would say it's not true because we have a record of things dying (fossils) that predate man, but is that an accurate criticism.Let's look at the earth and the universe in a more scientific and holistic manner. The earth can be described not just as a sphere floating in space travelling through time, but as a streak within space-time (time being relative). So we have this system that does not include death.The assumption is that the introduction of death into the system was introduced into a system only from one point forward rather than into the whole system. if one thinks of death as entirely outside the system, then the introduction of death should have well affected all points in the system, including the past.Think of it this way. Reality is generated by a program that does not contain death, and then death is added to the program generating reality so that now, physical reality contains this principle. Another way to get your head around it is to think of the universe as the collapsed state of a quantum superstate on a macro-scale, and with new information, the state of the time-line is changed entirely so that a new path is indicated, one that contains death.If this was true, we would expect the general patterns in the original creation to be true, but to be changed significantly and probably still changing.This is just one example, but it shows how what is a fact is determined by what assumptions one uses to interpret data. If one assumes a linear time-line of causality (which imo is fading as scientifically valid), then it is a fact that death preceded man perhaps. If one assumes the system can be affected as a whole, and that non-linear causality is possible, then it is not a fact that death preceded the creation of man.I would submit on every thread, the underlying assumptions ought to be fair game to be challenged as these assumptions determine what is a fact and what is not.

Maybe Miscellaneous or Showcase?

So that part is settled? No, what we really need to see is some evidence that time works and "flows" or however you want to describe in a purely linear fashion as a constant.With the advent of general relativity and aspects of quantum physics, we have good reason to believe time is actually relative to speed, distance and other things. So WE KNOW (in layman's terms) that time does not work as we thought it did in the 19th century. The relative aspect of time gives us a significantly different picture of the universe, which is why I referred to the earth as a streak through space-time rather a ball floating in space at a point in time.Now, to test this ides further, we would need to see evidence of causality that could theoritically occur from the present back into the past, and we do see that in quantum physics with the principle of entanglement. In fact, there was a paper dealing with this that got a lot of publicity last year. Maybe someone knowledgeable with it can talk about it.http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402127My observations prior to that paper are similar, and I can more easily talk about that. Quantum Mechanics predicted a long time ago at it's formation that entangled particles, though seemingly separate, must act as one system even if they are observationally separate from our vantage point and even if light-years apart.Einstein called this "spooky action at a distance" and began to reject some aspects of the theory he helped develop. Such action at a distance implied either superluminal action, which is againstr General Relativity, or a non-locality or inseparability as we call it today. In other words, even though the particles seem to be physically separate, they are actually not. For many years, this was just a "thought experiment" applying the principles of QM deduced from things like the classic 2-slit experiment, but as technology has advanced, QM was correct in predicting entanglement.In fact, QM has been perhaps the most successful scientific theory in the past 100 years with quite a lot applied applications even if it is hard to reconcile it with our observations from a classical sense. One of the things about QM and the classic 2-slit experiment is that it "seems" as if the particle knows in advanced what is going to occur. There are a range of interpretations for that, but regardless of them, it appears somehow the particle's pathway in the past is affected by a present action.John Wheeler when talking about this went as far as to say that when we observe a particle from light-years away, it is a fallacy to ask whether the particle propagated as a wave or a particle, but that it was undefined until it observation and thus it appears as one or the other. Now, we can debate what constitutes "observation" and all that on a different thread, but the point is that when the particle does go through what some have called the collapsing of the wave function (perhaps a bit of a misnomer) or takes on discrete form, it takes on that form potentially from light-years back as well. In other words, this is hard experimentally evidence of causality from the present onto the past through QM principles (possibly via entanglement with the particle with it's past state).So contrary to your claim, my claim is not philosophical but based on hard, scientific experimental data in the 2-slit experiment and over 80 years of experiments in quantum physics, experiments that can be and are reproduced in the lab, and not merely inferences from data as evos do about the past.Imo, the data from QM is unassailable on this point at present.What does this have to do with time? Well, in some experime

Well, in my thinking, I actually think death was a latent ingredient in the system ans so perhaps that was not most precise description I gave earlier, but if we are talking about the Bible, regardless, God is something unaffected on one level by the system. He is an unchanging Substance.

80 years of QM experiment is good evidence as is the classic 2-slit experiment.

Since so many here are making consistently the wrong objection, claiming once again despite them being shown again and again the hard scientific data supporting some non-linear causality, I will just say that you guys can deny the principle of entanglement all day long as Einstein did when he called it "spooky action at a distance" but you are fighting a losing battle. It is a scientific concept, demonstrated via repeatable experiments, and it is a demonstration of non-linear causality, which refutes your assumptions that it is impossible.From a classical perspective, it does appear impossible, but that's because assumptions about a static past, about a constant flow of time, etc,....were false, and yet you guys still formulate arguments based on those false assumptions.

Maybe you are not seeing the point. You guys assert there is no scientific evidence for non-linear (time-wise) causality, but the classic 2-slit experiment and the principle of entanglement demonstrate exactly what you claim cannot happen.http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0402/0402127.pdf

You always emphatically state it, usually with some misrepresentation of what I said, and then as we get into the details, you are forced to admit to the details, and then you refuse to discuss it any longer.How long will we have to go around the merry-go-around before you accept the implications of QM? I know it's related to your field, but you reject the implications of it over and over again, which is one reason, imo, you misrepresent me.Tell you what though. Here is your chance to shine and explain this paper. I draw my ideas straight from the 2-slit experiment, which is not "just math" and can be demonstrated without math, but you always claim the math is the key. Well, these guys talk the math, in ways over most of our heads but presumably not over your's. So let's hear it. They claim the principle of entanglement based on math and experiments means that entanglement can occur over segments of time.Here it is.http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0402/0402127.pdfRather than assert yourself as an authority and arguing from authority, make bare assertions that I am wrong, explain what these guys are saying and how they are wrong in your view.Moreover, please don't misrepresent me. I know you are or claim to be a Christian. So be honest. You know full well I am not arguing causility isn't true. I am saying causility can and does occur over perdiods of time such that it is not always linear time-wise (present events can affect the past).Edited by randman, : No reason given.

OK, so you are beginning to get some of what I am talking about. Keep in mind that the universe consists of the quantum world, or is built up from the quantum world, may be a better way to say it.So you are saying that a present can occur which there was no determinate past, but that when the present occurs, the past is then determined.How is this not a demonstration that a present event can determine and thus have a causal effect on the past? No. Not at all. The past as part of the whole is never completely fixed if there are present events that can determine, as you say, the past in any fashion at all. As far as the differences in micro and macro level, I would say, although I could be wrong, that it is likely the present events determining and thus having a causal effect on the past are smaller, much smaller, than the linear causality of macro-objects "seeming to" propogate in time (false concept), but you get the point. Linear causation is bigger at any point in time.But there are 2 kickers you may be ignoring. One is the fact that the longer time elapses, the more those smaller effects add up. That's why at any point in time it appears that causality is from point A to point B, but over millions and billions of years and compounded as that time span is elongated (the past present can affect the past past if you get that), then one would expect a considerable expansion and perhaps contraction of the time-line.Regardless, the reality is that the past is not static (by your own admission) since it is not determined.Small quantum effects compounded and added to massive locations in space and time add up to large macro effects as the macro world is produced by the interactions of the quantum world.There is also the intrigueing notion of the effects of choice from more conscious observers, but then we are opening a big can of worms.Suffice to say, you agree that the past is not static.

Keep in mind that I don't accept the Theory of Evolution on factual grounds. So I am not trying to reconcile the Bible here with evolution, as some suggest. I don't even think the Bible suggests a young earth. I do believe that the Bible doesn't necessarily disagree with evolutionary theory except the concept it occurs via chance, etc,..... Imo, the Bible is not scientifically precise enough to rule out various theories except, of course, those that demand the science rule out a personal God.But this is a side-point dealing with my motive here, and answering critics who presume my motive is last Thursdayism as some have stated. Edited by randman, : Edit to add reason for putting this post here, but clarifying I don't want to stray from the OP.

But it's a different topic and I don't want to sidetrack this one, and don't really have time to debate it on a different thread, but maybe some other time.

altered or determined? Remember that a present action determining past behaviour is a demonstration of the principle of causality flowing from the present towards the past. With that in mind, how about?the classic 2-slit experimentEdited by randman, : No reason given.

So in your view, these leading scientists in their field, which apparently you were attempting to be a part of?, are merely advancing fanciful ideas. Well, it's worth pointing out that that apparently others don't agree with you. Page Not Found - Biophysica Incorporated
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402127
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.or...You also failed to make any comments on the math, nor any substantive comments at all here, but once again resort to arguments from authority coupled with bare assertions.

I think you are not fully appreciating what is occuring. PaulK referenced the delayed-choice experiments because they actually do demonstrate the exact opposite of your claim. They show that the inteference causing a collapse via their delayed-choice apparatus actually causes the particle to collapse prior to the measurement that causes the collapse.Think of it this way. A particle is in superposition travelling for a thousand light-years, did it travel as a wave or particle? It actually travels as neither but as a possibility of either one state or another, as more wave-like or particle-like, but when it is observed, then it has travelled as one or the other. Percy, you've got it wrong. Delayed-choice experiments show that, in fact, the observation or measurement affects the state the light travels in prior to the measurement.

Just hot air? I understand QM from experiments, and in that regard, working with quantum level optics is a good way to come up with hard data and experiments and so is nothing to be scoffed at by theorists.The reason I asked you about the math was that they present their ideas from the math in that paper and thought you might can comment on it, but I think once you understand the concepts of entanglement, it is not so difficult to grasp the concept that entanglement can work over segments of time. You being so knowledgeable of GR ought to appreciate that if entanglement can work over vast spans of space instantly, that working over segments of time is not at all surprising.